Office of the Clerk
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Jeep v. Government of the USA - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari US 8th CIRCUIT - Case No: 17-1246
For the continuing record as referenced above and my seven prior petitions - since day one November 3, 2003, this is and has been a criminal conspiracy against rights at issue is – an infamously-scandalous, non-exigent, extra-judicial gravamen, - a NOT “facially valid court order”  (Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 356-57 (1978) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) - that was issued “in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction,"” (Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790 (2003)) - “beyond debate” (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. _(2015)) “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right” ( Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987), Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011)).
If reasonable probable cause (reckonabilty)
does not limit jurisdiction nothing can.
It is “beyond debate” ludicrous to believe that the founding fathers ever thought to provide a constitutional conclusive presumption of absolute immunity to anyone. Much less specifically "judges are absolutely immune from liability for their judicial acts," or generally, “for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process.” Absolute immunity creates martial law at the expense of ANY constitutional assertion.
The founding fathers wanted more than a parchment guarantee. 
“In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” 
The founders had NUMEROUS TIMES seen the abuse of unrestricted power in general and judicial power specifically. The founding fathers, in 1789, were well-versed students of history, the Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber”  (1641), the Bloody Assizes (1685) and the Writs of Assistance – “Wilkes and Liberty.” (1763)
That would be, in 2017, as relevant as the 14th Amendment (nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (1868)), 16th Amendment (federal income tax, ratified (1913)), and Maastricht Treaty (formally, the Treaty on European Union, (1991)).
Do you think there is anyway in the world sub silentio that the founding fathers, thought Judges’ bad acts in the Star Chamber, Bloody Assizes and Writs of Assistance should be covered by some postulation of unwritten conclusive presumption of absolute immunity?
Any assertion of need for “an independent judiciary” is defeated by the Supreme Court’s own assertion of binding precedent. If we had a truly independent judiciary; the actions of the Juries in Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871), United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), Wells v. Memphis and Charleston Railroad (Southwestern Reporter, Volume 4, May 16–August 1, 1887) and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983) could have been REPEATED without the limiting Iron Boot of binding precedent to defeat the truly INDEPENDENT pursuit of justice.
The only other defense of “absolute immunity” is that to hold everyone accountable to the “rule of law” would expose them to “continual Calumniations” or “vexatious actions." There would be too many suits “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The unfettered inalienable constitutional right assured by the 1st amendment would be impossible. That is an admission that the ends of justice of our founders is not worthy of pursuit.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN (and I) dissenting - “Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to defeat the ends the people desired to accomplish, which they attempted to accomplish, and which they supposed they had accomplished by changes in their fundamental law. By this I do not mean that the determination of these cases should have been materially controlled by considerations of mere expediency or policy. I mean only, in this form, to express an earnest conviction that the court has departed from the familiar rule requiring, in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.”
“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
I seek both injunctive relief and monetary damages, as an escalating amount, noted in the several prior petitions for writ of certiorari.
If there is anything I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
“Time is of the essence”
David G. Jeep
cc: Clerk of Court - Michael E. Gans, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
My Blog - Friday, July 14, 2017, 4:40:04 PM
 The assertion of a misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide REASONABLE probable cause for an ex parte order of protection. Clearly based on the original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03, there was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated charge.
 If reason (reckonabilty) does not limit jurisdiction with probable cause, nothing can.
 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
 " To this day, I am haunted by the vivid memory of the confirming shrug from the Police Officer when I questioned it as served on November 3, 2003. I am further haunted by the memory of the same confirming shrug when Com-missioner Jones first saw the absurdity of the court order on the bench No-vember 20, 2003 as my attorney then highlighted and repeated his prior objections." Lisa Nesbit c/o OFFICE OF THE CLERK Thursday, June 15, 2017, 10:23:36 AM
 "reckonability" Antonin Scalia: The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1175-81 (1989)
 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011), Mullenix v. Luna 577 U. S. ____ (2015)
 The Federalist Papers : No. 48 - These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No
Constitutional Control Over Each Other - From the New York Packet. Friday, February 1, 1788. James Madison
 Act of Parliament “Abolition of the Star Chamber” July 5, 1641, statute law in the realm of England, or dominion of Wales, that “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” for CAUSE, the abuse of absolutely immune discretion, the originating controlling precedent for “absolute immunity” in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 347 (1871) supra Star Chamber Floyd and Barker 1607.
Article I “An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.” “WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land:…
§ 9 of “but the said judges have not kept themselves to the points limited by the said statute, but have undertaken to punish where no law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments than by any law is warranted”
Article III “Be it ordained and enacted by the authority of this present parliament, That the said court commonly called the star-chamber, and all jurisdiction, power and authority belonging unto, or exercised in the same court, or by any the judges, officers, or ministers thereof, be from the first day of August in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty and one, clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away and determined”
§ 3 “every article, clause and sentence in them, and every of them, by which any jurisdiction, power or authority is given, limited or appointed unto the said court commonly called the star-chamber, or unto all or any the judges, officers or ministers thereof, or for any proceedings to be had or made in the said court, or for any matter or thing to be drawn into question, examined or determined there, shall for so much as concerneth the said court of star-chamber, and the power and authority thereby given unto it, be from the said first day of August repealed and absolutely revoked and made void.”
The Act explicitly disbands the court for cause, “repealed and absolutely revoked and made void” all prior precedent of the said court and judges.
 There were five judges – Sir William Montague (Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer), Sir Robert Wright, Sir Francis Wythens, (Justice of the King's Bench), Sir Creswell Levinz (Justice of the Common Pleas) and Sir Henry Pollexfen, led by Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys.
The Bloody Assizes were a series of trials started at Winchester on 25 August 1685 in the aftermath of the Battle of Sedgemoor, which ended the Monmouth Rebellion in England.
More than 1,400 prisoners were dealt with and although most were sentenced to death, fewer than 300 were hanged or hanged, drawn and quartered. The Taunton Assize took place in the Great Hall of Taunton Castle (now the home of the Museum of Somerset). Of more than 500 prisoners brought before the court on the 18/19 September, 144 were hanged and their remains displayed around the county to ensure people understood the fate of those who rebelled against the king.
Jeffreys returned to London after the Assizes to report to King James, who rewarded him by making him Lord Chancellor (at the age of only 40), 'For the many eminent and faithful services to the Crown'. Jeffreys became known as "the hanging judge."
Writing as recently as 1929, Sir John C. Fox said:
“Even to the present day, the mothers of West Somerset control their unruly offspring by threatening to send for 'Judge Jeffreys'.”( Sir John Fox, The Lady Ivie's Trial, (Oxford University Press, 1929), xlix.)
 John Wilkes’s publication (1763) of North Britain No. 45 enraged the Crown. One of the secretaries of state issued general search warrants for the arrest of anyone associated North Britain No. 45. They ransacked Print Shops, houses and arrested 49 persons, including Wilkes, a Member of Parliament, his printer, publisher and bookseller. Wilkes filed suit for trespass against everyone from flunky to minister. Although Wilkes focused on mainly on the danger of general warrants and the seizure of private papers
 FEDERALIST No. 51 - The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, February 6, 1788. -by James Madison